173 Conn. App. 389
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Two plaintiffs (James Doe and John Doe) sued pediatrician Robert Rackliffe alleging repeated sexual assaults while minors and sought to proceed under pseudonyms.
- Plaintiffs filed an ex parte request for temporary pseudonyms when they commenced the action; the court granted temporary use pending a full hearing under Practice Book § 11-20A(h).
- Plaintiffs submitted affidavits describing the assaults and asserting that disclosure of their identities would cause harassment, humiliation, and exacerbation of psychological trauma; they opposed live testimony at an evidentiary hearing.
- The defendant objected, arguing the record was insufficient and requested an evidentiary hearing; he also noted plaintiffs had publicized the lawsuit to media.
- The trial court concluded the affidavits were conclusory and inadequate to show a substantial privacy interest outweighing the public’s right of access and denied continued use of pseudonyms, noting credibility and live-evidence considerations and the plaintiffs’ media publicity.
- The plaintiffs appealed, arguing the court erred by (1) effectively requiring live testimony and (2) finding the existing record insufficient to establish overriding privacy interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs may continue to proceed under pseudonyms | Affidavits and complaint allegations establish substantial privacy interests (sexual assault as minors) that outweigh public interest; no live testimony required | Record insufficient; evidentiary hearing required to assess credibility and weight; media publicity undermines anonymity claim | Denied — court did not abuse discretion; affidavits were conclusory and insufficient to overcome presumption of open proceedings |
| Whether an evidentiary (live testimony) hearing was required before denying pseudonym use | Court could decide based on sworn affidavits and complaint; plaintiffs declined live testimony to avoid further trauma | Trial court must consider credibility and weight of evidence; live testimony appropriate to support privacy claims | Court reasonably required an evidentiary basis; plaintiffs had opportunity to present live evidence but declined; denial affirmed |
| Whether media publicity forfeited anonymity | Plaintiffs: media contact did not amount to forfeiture if identities remained concealed | Defendant: publicity reduces privacy interest and public already alerted, diminishing weight of anonymity claim | Court considered publicity a relevant factor; but affirmed denial primarily on insufficiency of affidavits |
| Standard of review for anonymity requests | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Court applied Practice Book §11-20A and established presumption of openness; appellate review is abuse-of-discretion/informed-discretion standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Vargas v. Doe, 96 Conn. App. 399 (recognizes high threshold for proceeding anonymously; identifies factors such as social stigmatization and real danger of harm)
- Doe v. Connecticut Bar Examining Committee, 263 Conn. 39 (only exceptional, highly sensitive matters justify anonymity)
- Stuart v. Freiberg, 316 Conn. 809 (conclusory averments in affidavits are inadequate to defeat procedural burdens)
- Sabanovic v. Sabanovic, 108 Conn. App. 89 (denial of pseudonym use is an appealable order under Curcio)
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (final-judgment principles applied to interlocutory appeals)